1

The full text of §1915A reads:

(a) Screening.--The court shall review, before docketing, if feasible or, in any event, as soon as practicable after

docketing, a complaint in a civil action in which a prisoner

seeks redress from a governmental entity or officer or

employee of a governmental entity.

(b) Grounds for Dismissal.--On review the court shall

identify cognizable claims or dismiss the complaint, or any

portion of the complaint, if the complaint--

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell,

Plaintiff

 v.

Gary Mohr, et al.,

Defendants

:

:

:

:

:

Civil Action 2:12-cv-0215

Judge Frost

Magistrate Judge Abel

INITIAL SCREENING

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff D'Nanakai Carrigan-Terrell, an inmate at the Ohio Reformatory for

Women at the time of the events alleged in the complaint, brings this prisoner civil

rights action under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This matter is before the Magistrate Judge for a

Report and Recommendation on initial screening of the complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§1915A(a) and (b)1

 and 42 U.S.C. §1997e(c) to identify cognizable claims, and to dismiss

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
claim upon which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who

is immune from such relief.

(c) Definition.--As used in this section, the term

"prisoner" means any person incarcerated or detained in any

facility who is accused of, convicted of, sentence for, or

adjudicated delinquent for, violations of criminal law or

terms and conditions of parole, probation, pretrial release, or

diversionary program.

2

the complaint, or any portion of it, which is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, or seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is

immune from such relief. The Magistrate Judge finds that the complaint fails to state a

claim upon which relief may be granted against defendants Gary Mohr, Dr. Welch,

Elizabeth Wright, and Capt. Putt and therefore RECOMMENDS that they be

DISMISSED from this lawsuit. The lawsuit will continue against defendants Warden

Jennie Trim, Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tench, Dr. Tano, Mr. Nicastro, Nurse Maldinado, and

Nurse Riter as to plaintiff’s claim that they denied her due process of law by forcing her

to take psychotropic medication. 

The complaint alleges that three or four times plaintiff has been falsely charged

and convicted of assault. Further, in April 2011 she was placed in segregation on the

erroneous charge of attempting to establish a relationship with an officer. She was

found guilty and sentenced to 15 days in disciplinary control, followed by a placement

in local control.

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
3

The complaint alleges that on November 20, 2010 Officer Bonjo was escorting

plaintiff when he maced her and punched her in the face. Lt. Booth lied, saying plaintiff

assaulted him. Plaintiff was placed in segregation for 15 days and required to take

bipolar medicine. Plaintiff was handcuffed for 2-3 hours and given no medical attention

for a burning sensation in her eyes. Neither Officer Bonjo nor Lt. Booth are named as

defendants. Doc. 1-2, PAGEID ## 16 and 19. Nor does the complaint identify the

person(s) who denied plaintiff treatment for the tear gas in her eyes.

The complaint further alleges that around June 2010 plaintiff was told to go to

the Residential Treatment Unit to see Dr. Welch. But when she got to the Unit, she was

forcibly placed in a cell and made to undergo a psychological evaluation. She was

forced to remain in the cell 24 hours a day for about 4 days. Then she was required to

live in the Residential Treatment Unit. The complaint also alleges that after plaintiff had

been off psychotropic medicine for five months, Dr. Nalluri requested a mandatory

medication hearing for her. Defendants Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tano, Dr. Tench, and Nurse

Riter did not let plaintiff attend the first hearing, even though she was competent to do

so. Nurse Riter was supposed to be plaintiff’s liaison, but she favored defendants. On

appeal, defendants Dr. Burke and Mr. Nicastro denied plaintiff the right to call

witnesses and upheld the initial hearing decision to require plaintiff to take medication.

The medication, which has unpleasant side effects, was administered to punish plaintiff.

Dr. Burke denied plaintiff’s appeal; and Warden Jennie Trim never responded to her

appeal. Plaintiff seeks to be removed from mandatory medications.

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
2

The complaint does not plead the year. Since plaintiff asks that she be taken off

mandatory medication, I assume that the year is 2011.

4

Again on September 72

, plaintiff was given another mandatory medication

hearing at the request of defendants Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tano, Dr. Tench, and Nurse

Maldinado. Nurse Crum was plaintiff’s liaison. Dr. Nalluri lied, stating that plaintiff

was assaultive, suicidal, and neglectful of her personal hygiene. 

Rule 8(a), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides for notice pleading. Conley

v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957). The United States Supreme Court held in Erickson v.

Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93127 S.Ct. 2197 (2007):

. . . Rule 8(a)(2) requires only "a short and plain statement of the claim

showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Specific facts showing that

the pleader is entitled to relief are not necessary; the statement need only

"'give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds

upon which it rests.': Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. , , 127

S.Ct. 1955, (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)).

Moreover, pro se complaints must be liberally construed. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. at

94; Hughes v. Rowe, 449 U.S. 5, 9-10 (1980).

Initial Screening. The complaint contains allegations about disciplinary

convictions and incarceration in disciplinary control and segregation, denial of medical

treatment, and forced medication. Each will be considered separately.

Discipline. An inmate is not entitled to due process of law at a disciplinary

hearing unless placement in disciplinary confinement is accompanied by a withdrawal

of good-time credits or is for a significant period of time that presents an unusual

hardship on the inmate. See, e.g., Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472, 485-86 (1995) (30-day

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
5

confinement, without more, did not present “dramatic departure from basic conditions”

of inmate’s indeterminate sentence); Whitford v. Boglino, 63 F.3d 527, 532 (7th Cir. 1995)

(six month confinement in disciplinary confinement was not an atypical and significant

hardship, and return of good time credits mooted claim that restraint affected duration

of confinement). Here the complaint does not allege that plaintiff lost good time credits

and the RIB sentences were just 15 days in disciplinary control.

The United States Supreme Court, in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995),

concluded that, absent “atypical and significant hardship”, a change in the conditions of

confinement does not inflict a cognizable injury that merits constitutional protection. Id.

at 484. Placement in disciplinary segregation is not itself an atypical and significant

hardship. Rimmer-Bey v. Brown, 62 F.3d 789, 791 (6th Cir. 1995). 

Consequently, the allegations in the complaint regarding plaintiff’s disciplinary

convictions fail to state a claim.

Assault. Although the complaint alleges that correction officers assaulted

plaintiff on several occasions, it does not name as defendants any of the officers

involved.

Denial medical care. The complaint does not identify any defendant as the

person(s) who allegedly denied plaintiff treatment for tear gas in her eyes.

Involuntary medication. In Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210, 227 (1990), the

United States Supreme Court held that “given the requirements of the prison

environment, the Due Process Clause permits the State to treat a prison inmate who has

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
6

a serious mental illness with antipsychotic drugs against his will, if the inmate is

dangerous to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate's medical interest.” 

Before an inmate is involuntarily medicated, due process requires notice of a hearing

and a meaningful opportunity to be heard. Id. at 228-29. Due process does not require

a judicial decisionmaker. Rather, the decision to involuntarily medicate a prisoner may

be made by medical professionals and corrections officials. Id.

Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Policy 67-MNH-07 provides

that an inmate with a documented serious illness who refuses voluntary treatment may

be involuntarily medicated after a hearing by a panel of three mental health

professionals consisting of at least one psychiatrist and one psychologist or licensed

independent social worker. The inmate has a right to be present and to offer relevant

evidence, including a right to present testimony and call witnesses, concerning the

necessity of treatment. Involuntary medication may be approved only if it is

demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that the inmate suffers from a serious

mental illness and as a result of the illness there is a substantial likelihood of serious

harm to himself or others, significant property damage, or that the inmate is gravely

disabled if he is not medicated.

On initial screening, the Magistrate Judge concludes that the complaint

sufficiently alleges claims against defendants Warden Jennie Trim, Dr. Nalluri, Dr.

Tench, Dr. Tana, Mr. Nicastro, Nurse Maldinado, and Nurse Riter for denying plaintiff

due process of law in connection with forcing her to take psychotropic mediation.

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
7

Accordingly, it is hereby RECOMMENDED that defendants Gary Mohr, Dr.

Welch, Elizabeth Wright, and Capt. Putt and be DISMISSED from this lawsuit. The

lawsuit will continue against defendants Warden Jennie Trim, Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tench,

Dr. Tana, Mr. Nicastro, Nurse Maldinado, and Nurse Riter as to plaintiff’s claim that

they denied her due process of law by forcing her to take psychotropic medication. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the United States Marshal serve upon each

defendant named in part III, B and C of the form civil rights complaint a summons, a

copy of the complaint, and a copy of this Order. Defendants Dr. Welch, Elizabeth

Wright, and Capt. Putt are not required to answer the complaint unless later ordered to

do so by the Court. Defendants Warden Jennie Trim, Dr. Nalluri, Dr. Tench, Dr. Tana,

Mr. Nicastro, Nurse Maldinado, and Nurse Riter are ORDERED to answer or otherwise

respond to the complaint within forty-five (45) days of the date of this Order.

The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the Attorney

General of Ohio, Corrections Litigation Section, 150 East Gay St., 16th Floor, Columbus,

OH 43215.

If any party objects to this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within

fourten (14) days, file and serve on all parties a motion for reconsideration by the Court,

specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in

question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. See 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R.

Civ. P. 72(b).

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>
8

The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and

Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District

Judge and waiver of the right to appeal the judgment of the District Court. Thomas v.

Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150-152 (1985); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). 

See also Small v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 892 F.2d 15, 16 (2d Cir. 1989).

s/Mark R. Abel 

United States Magistrate Judge 

Case: 2:12-cv-00215-GLF-MRA Doc #: 4 Filed: 03/20/12 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: <pageID>